Article 26

• Article 26 gives autonomy to every religious denomination or any section thereof “in matters of religion”, subject to public order, health and morality.

• In interpreting these articles, the Supreme Court had said that every religious practice will not be constitutionally protected.

• In the process, it ignored the fact that privileging one practice over another is not right.

• Moreover, in Ismail Farooqi (1994), the Court further restricted religious freedom by adding new conditions through new doctrines of “peculiar significance of religious practice” and insisting on “comparative examination of religious practice under different religions”.

Way forward

• It is not the judiciary’s job to reform religions.

• The Sabarimala protests and politicisation of the issue is yet another reminder that we should tread cautiously while dealing with purely religious matters.

• The supremacy of the Constitution need not be converted into an idolatry of the law.

• Constitutional morality is a laudable goal but we are not yet ready for it.

• Despite Constitution’s text, on the ground, neither does freedom of religion mean “freedom from religion” nor does it include — at least for our women — “freedom within religion”